This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Disturbing yet enthralling

Did you people see the same film I saw?

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

In the case of 1942's The Gay Sisters, more is supposed to mean better. The mansion set and the very epic-like nature of the sisters' story lines signify that it is a top-grade project from a top-grade studio (Warner Brothers). Barbara Stanwyck, as the older sister, Fiona Gaylord, seems to be particularly tough. She is never really a soft-touch, except in those moments where she undergoes a severe script-sanctioned transformation. But I think she is at her most real in this film, and it is more true to her off-screen self. Like the character she plays, she was also orphaned; and also, like the character she plays, she had one son, so in many ways, this project is tailor-made for Stanwyck. It is a treat watching her, and if modern audiences can get over the title, they will discover a classic gem.

Despite the titillating sounding title, the film is about the three Gaylord sisters--not some weird porn flick.The film begins with a father about to go off to war. He tells his oldest daughter that if anything happens to him to NEVER sell the family estate...never. Well, not at all surprisingly since it was telegraphed all the way, the guy is pushing up daisies almost immediately afterwords and for the next 23 years (yes, 23 years), the will is in probate--being contested by all sorts of folks. During all this time, the oldest daughter (Barbara Stanwyck) is steadfast--no matter what happens, they will not sell their home.The particular party who is now contesting the will is Charles Barclay (a great choice for a name, huh?)--played by George Brent. Why he and Stanwyck are fighting so bitterly and why he insists he MUST have the mansion (even though his cut, if the court upholds it for Brent's charity, is only 10% and they'd never award him the mansion) is eventually revealed...and this seemed pretty dumb. Although you never had any indication of this before, you find out that the two had very briefly been married--and almost no one knew about it. This is very awkward and the flashback scene showing the marriage and breakup is poorly done and makes no sense. Why they had it narrated was odd but also what was odd was why Stanwyck stomped off in a huff almost immediately after the wedding. WHY?!?!?! None of this made any sense and just seemed random and illogical. What was even more illogical was after their divorce, Stanwyck had his baby and told no one whose child it was--claiming she'd adopted it! Huh?! The rest of the film consists of very nasty Stanwyck and almost as nasty Brent arguing until, thankfully, they make up and the film ends (and wow, did it take too long for this to happen).Sadly, almost none of the plot made sense (particularly Stanwyck's intense hatred toward her ex-) and the film seemed very forced. It's sad, as Stanwyck and Brent were very good actors and deserved a film with a decent script...which this film did not have. Stanwyck just comes off as nasty and impetuous---and I can see why Bette Davis declined this film project--and I am surprised an actress as big as Stanwyck agreed to it. Good acting and good direction apparently can't make up for the crappy plot--and she, Brent and the rest gave it their best try.By the way, didn't it seem like the film was possibly implying that Brent raped Stanwyck when she announced she was leaving him? See it yourself. If the film had made this clear, this WOULD have made all this drivel seem logical and worth seeing. Then you could have understood much of her anger--though you never had any idea why she married him and almost immediately announced she was leaving. Duh.Here's an oddity about this movie. Byron Barr played a character named 'Gig Young' in this film. Subsequently, he changed his name to that of his character and that is how actor Gig Young got his name.

Donald Woods tells the oldest of his 3 daughters never to sell the land-in land there is value! This is not "Gone With the Wind" in any sense of those famous words.There is too much going on here. After feuding with George Brent for half the film, we suddenly learn that they were once married and in a one-night stand, a child was produced.If that isn't enough, Gig Young got his stage name from this film by playing a character by the name of Gig Young! Well, after all, they shoot horses, don't they?It is never fully realized which sister Young goes to the tempestuous Geraldine Fitzgerald, who proved her nastiness once again and the usual benign Nancy Coleman.Barbara Stanwyck plays the hard-boiled eldest of the 3 sisters, but in reality, she is anything but. She tries to do the ultimate in the end by giving the child up to dad, George Brent, but you know where that will come to.Gene Lockhart, as a family attorney, showed that he had some devil in him, by embezzling family funds and Donald Crisp showed his meddle as an understanding but extremely competent attorney.

This was probably one of the most well-made films of the 40's - Warner Bros. at the very height of their style. The photography by Sol Polito is arguably his finest achievement - gorgeous compositions and lighting with delicate shadowing. Max Steiner contributes one of his most complex and beautiful scores - the epitome of his classical leit motif method. The music adds great emotion and excitement to the plot and is exquisite and memorable. It's interesting to note that the same production team that made this movie went right on to make "Now, Voyager" later that year - a fine film which won honors and awards and went down as a historical favorite, ciefly because it starred Bette Davis. IN my opinion, "The Gay Sisters" is a much better film - better made in all departments, and more interesting, complex and enjoyable. A most unusual film which entertains those who take it for what it is, rather than project their own modern creative sensibilities or their advanced and demanding standards of hyper-critical perfection. Each thing has to be judged in it's own time reference and for what it is trying to achieve on its own terms. Most of the complaints I've read in these reviews are so childish and totally missing the point. If you're hungry for a perfect filet mignon, don't go to the bakery counter and start whining and complaining about the fluff pastry. The art of film criticism is truly lost on a large segment of the population. Sorry folks - maybe if this movie had had a score by the Rolling Stones and a hundred intricate and soul searching subplots, you'd all be gleefully gratified. I'll take an old movie without modern intellectual pretensions an day of the week!